A game like CoD or Battlefield that supposedly only emphasizes multiplayer shouldn't have a single player campaign at all, and only cost half price, like what TF2 did. If you are going to claim that the single player is every bit as important (which Activision does), then expect it to be reviewed as such.

He has nothing against online only games, he has something against Multiplayer focused games charging full price, and using a flimsy single player campaign to justify it.

So price is the problem?

The multiplayer-only ARMA II sold for £25 at launch then the necessary Operation Arrowhead needed to play the DayZ Mod costs ANOTHER £25 by launch price. And HE REVIEWED DAYZ'S MULTIPLAYER!!!

He has nothing against online only games, he has something against Multiplayer focused games charging full price

Activision obviously doesn't think singleplayer is as important as multiplayer, otherwise they wouldn't have their main TV ad totally focus on the multiplayer aspect of the game. Their social-media gurus are dedicated entirely to dealing with multiplayer balance rumours and patch details. Not plot reveals and DLC side missions. Hell, they have separate installs for Singleplayer and Multiplayer.

And console games just do not sell for less than the "standard rate" of $60 or around about £40 in UK for being single-player only (Skyrim, Dishonored) nor do they sell for even close to half the price when multiplayer-only as for Starhawk, MAG or DC Universe Online.

And PC games don't sell for less when multiplayer only, as in Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor.

Even ignoring the campaign, Black Ops 2's Zombies mode is not completely worthless, if it was a stand-alone game on XBLA it would be a $20 game for sure. And it wouldn't be an XBLA game as the download size would be too high.

Just popping in to say racism is about more than people hurting/being mean to you. It's also about the systems of oppression that operate throughout our (in my case, American) culture. White people can't be victims of racism because racism is about more than people hurting you; it's about institutions, stereotypes, and culture seeking to bring people who look like you down or keep you as less than. It's about privileging the history of one dominant ethnic group over all others. It's about erasure and faulty assumptions, even the ones that sound good ("I don't see color, I see people," for example, becomes a method of blaming victims of, say, residential segregation or white gentrification, on people of color or ignoring the fact that it happens entirely).

White privilege is about not having to notice or think about this or be affected by it. It's about having an entire history and culture of a nation dedicated to raising you and people who look like you up. White privilege is when a white kid in my class complains to me that s/he can't write about her/his culture be s/he is white (as if whites have no culture; it's American culture! It's the culture of western Europe!). Racism is about normalizing whiteness so that everyone thinks white people are the standard.

In summary, racism isn't just a character trait or something; it's participation in certain systems of power that privilege ethnic groups (or folks who resemble the dominant ethnic group) over others. That's as far as I'm willing to go, because I'm not on the clock and there's so many books that have been written about systems of power (Foucault), the damages of racism (bell hooks, Frantz Fanon, Audre Lorde, and so on) that it doesn't make sense for me to do a dissertation on it in an internet forum when a library is a car ride away.

People who think it's possible to be racist against whites, particularly in America or Western Europe, are hilarious to me.

And to be on-topic, military shooters are so boring and stock it gives me metaphorical gamer blue balls. And I used to enjoy shooters on the PC, too (though I was awful at them). I'd love to see this fad/genre die so we could get some fun in the shooters again. More Perfect Dark/Goldeney/Unreal Tournament 2004/TF2!

Why does ___'s skin colour matter so much? The way I see it, his betrayal is proof that we're finally moving beyond this shit. If ___ can be a traitor, it means we're one valuable step closer to Yahtzee's own vision of the tolerant society: where anyone can make a joke about anyone and everyone laughs. There's a small part of me that thinks Yahtzee only panned CoD because he dislikes the series, and fuck changing that, right?I don't think that's likely, but it'd be a lie to say the thought wasn't in my head.

A game like CoD or Battlefield that supposedly only emphasizes multiplayer shouldn't have a single player campaign at all, and only cost half price, like what TF2 did. If you are going to claim that the single player is every bit as important (which Activision does), then expect it to be reviewed as such.

He has nothing against online only games, he has something against Multiplayer focused games charging full price, and using a flimsy single player campaign to justify it.

So price is the problem?

The multiplayer-only ARMA II sold for £25 at launch then the necessary Operation Arrowhead needed to play the DayZ Mod costs ANOTHER £25 by launch price. And HE REVIEWED DAYZ'S MULTIPLAYER!!!

He has nothing against online only games, he has something against Multiplayer focused games charging full price

Activision obviously doesn't think singleplayer is as important as multiplayer, otherwise they wouldn't have their main TV ad totally focus on the multiplayer aspect of the game. Their social-media gurus are dedicated entirely to dealing with multiplayer balance rumours and patch details. Not plot reveals and DLC side missions. Hell, they have separate installs for Singleplayer and Multiplayer.

And console games just do not sell for less than the "standard rate" of $60 or around about £40 in UK for being single-player only (Skyrim, Dishonored) nor do they sell for even close to half the price when multiplayer-only as for Starhawk, MAG or DC Universe Online.

And PC games don't sell for less when multiplayer only, as in Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor.

Even ignoring the campaign, Black Ops 2's Zombies mode is not completely worthless, if it was a stand-alone game on XBLA it would be a $20 game for sure. And it wouldn't be an XBLA game as the download size would be too high.

Zeldias:Just popping in to say racism is about more than people hurting/being mean to you. It's also about the systems of oppression that operate throughout our (in my case, American) culture. White people can't be victims of racism because racism is about more than people hurting you;

Don't bother us with that bullshit 'privilege + power' definition, your side made up so you can say racism against whites is impossible.

I've always had an issue with the notion that one cannot be criticized for liking something. If that object has unfortunate implications, low quality in innovation or especially troubling aspects in its online community, what does that say about the individual who chooses to enjoy it?

There is a definite link between what the game is and what the community is; look towards attitudes online if you want any proof of concept. Also, most of the online community is white because they are the ones buying consoles. Why do they do that? Because they have the money. It's not "white guilt," it's fact.

I'm a born-into-wealth white guy and I reject the notion that I am responsible for the past. I am, however, responsible for the present and the future. Don't use the fact that people point out our ancestor's actions as an excuse to disengage.

So crusades to "correct" those communities by bashing them fits into your "responsibility for the present and future"? Because that never has consequences.

You have a funny way of "not being responsible for the past" but still taking responsibility for it. I'll just tell you, it doesn't help and it won't ever be enough. Do good where you are, people will actually appreciate that.

This isn't an "opinions are sacred and you have no right be against mine" argument. You can say: I like the starwars prequels just fine, Michael Bay can be a good director, I don't like Christopher Nolans movies, Yahtzee isn't funny to me, yahtzee is very funny to me, you have bad taste, whatever.

Stick up for your preferences and pay to have them. That's fine. But you don't get the right to bully other people just because a bunch of people might agree with you. And you CERTAINLY don't get the moral high ground for it. Especially when your facts are wrong.

- Online community is pretty international these days, but still mostly male and western. It's just that way and that's fine. It'll change on it's own.- just because people have money doesn't make them evil. Or their ancestors.- Racism and nationalism is usually more pronounced just about everywhere except America. America is just the one getting the lions share of the scorn from Intellectual Elitists generally because they have the most means to do something about it.

And I'm engaging just fine. I want people be free to like what they want and have judgements of character be made by people who actually know them before they're punished for it. This "White guilt" nonsense is just the current bullshit that casts aspersions on trumped up charges that I'm not fond of.

Zeldias:Just popping in to say racism is about more than people hurting/being mean to you. It's also about the systems of oppression that operate throughout our (in my case, American) culture. White people can't be victims of racism because racism is about more than people hurting you;

Don't bother us with that bullshit 'privilege + power' definition, your side made up so you can say racism against whites is impossible.

People who think it's possible to be racist against whites, particularly in America or Western Europe, are hilarious to me.

And that's because you're operating under a definition of racism that is bullshit.

This isn't sides; that's the sociological definition. If you don't like it, go write a fucking book and make arguments and get peer reviewed and shit. Unless you're gonna tell me that the entirety of academia is secretly trying to hurt white people's feelings.

Connor Lonske:i like how zero punctuation for a big game like Call of Duty or Halo comes out about a week or two so after the game in question comes out, hence meaning his opinion and critique on the game falls on ether deaf ears because they already played the game or never were going to anyways.

i also wonder why that is and who's causing it. both it being the work of yahtzee or the escapist seem equally likely, although i'm pretty sure if it's yahtzee who causes these games to be reviewed so late after release it's likely for him having a fucked up crazy schedule and nothing else.

and obviously i have nothing to say about the escapist staff at all nor am i implying anything. those guys sure are great. totally not sold ou-*is shot by an assassin before i can finish my sentence*

Because we're in Australia mate, and the original white people still don't like the ancestors of crims, so we get everything later and pay twice as much for them. Ironically enough I import all my games from the UK because its cheaper.

Arren Kae:Yahtzee has imbibed white guilt so strongly he complains when a story doesn't punish whites for imagined evils or portrays non-whites as anything but righteous and pure.

How are whites privileged? Under the law, it's illegal for a business to be all-white. Whites are forced to disfavor our people under threat-of-violence from the state. Whites are robbed through the issuance of new currency to pay for non-white housing, food, electricity, cell phones, plasma tvs, lobster dinners, schooling, medical care, and any other thing non-whites want. Meanwhile whites are robbed, assaulted, raped, and murdered by non-whites (excluding asians) disproportionately. Yet if a white man so much as is accused of saying an ill word against another race he risks imprisonment. In Yahtzee's jolly old England it's legal for muslim women to beat a white woman while screaming "kill the slag" but if a white mother expresses concern about her son growing up in such an environment she'll be held prisoner, fined, and her son kidnapped by the state.

You want to talk about slavery? You know who practiced slavery? Everyone. You know who was the first people to decide slavery was wrong and they wouldn't practice it anymore? Whites. Slavery is still practiced today in northern africa by jews and arabs, as it has been for generations, and there are more north-african slaves today than there ever were slaves in a european nation, canada, or the USA. In the UK pakistani and other foreigners have run child prostitution rings. But I'm sure that makes Yahtzee happy as long as the slaves are white.

As for homosexuals, his argument is entirely factitious and he knows it. Groups like GLAD argue for the state compelling churches by threat of force to issue marriage contracts to pairs of men and pairs of women. Yet in another section of Yahtzee's disconnected beliefs I'm sure he'd say there should be separation between church and state.

This is a rare post. I hoped I would get to see a white supremacist in the non R&P section.

Irrational fear and hate of blacks? Check.Blaming the Jews for world problems? Check.Absolving Whitey of all guilt? Check.Claiming gays wanting equal treatment is an issue of "force" by the state? Check.

They should frame this post somewhere. Just as a reminder to everyone that said that the KKK doesn't exist anymore.

Zeldias:Just popping in to say racism is about more than people hurting/being mean to you. It's also about the systems of oppression that operate throughout our (in my case, American) culture. White people can't be victims of racism because racism is about more than people hurting you;

Don't bother us with that bullshit 'privilege + power' definition, your side made up so you can say racism against whites is impossible.

People who think it's possible to be racist against whites, particularly in America or Western Europe, are hilarious to me.

And that's because you're operating under a definition of racism that is bullshit.

This isn't sides; that's the sociological definition. If you don't like it, go write a fucking book and make arguments and get peer reviewed and shit. Unless you're gonna tell me that the entirety of academia is secretly trying to hurt white people's feelings.

It's not the sociological definition that is again something your side made up.

Unless you got some proof. Although even if what you're saying wasn't crap, sociology only gets to define how words get used in their own circles at best (and this isn't one of them). They don't make the dictionary and they don't own the English language

Connor Lonske:i like how zero punctuation for a big game like Call of Duty or Halo comes out about a week or two so after the game in question comes out, hence meaning his opinion and critique on the game falls on ether deaf ears because they already played the game or never were going to anyways.

From what I understand, unlike the other big names in game reviews, Yahtzee doesn't get advance copies of games from the publishers (unsurprisingly, since you basically have to be giving them journalist fellatio to get in on that), so he has to wait until copies of the game arrive to stores near him, personally buy them, and then sit down and play them for a week before he can churn out his own review.

'Scuse me, but I like CoD. I don't like Medal of Honor or Battlefield, because they're just CoD with worse plots, more xenophobia and shorter campaigns, but CoD is one of the few triple-A games that;- Doesn't incorporate some kind of online pass/DRM system.- Continues to include split-screen modes for people like me and my brother.- Actually makes an effort in the story department

As far as I can tell, the only other franchise to offer those things is Halo, which you probably don't like either.And before you say it, I played Spec Ops. Liked it, too, although I wasn't playing it to feel like a hero. I bought it after I found out what its message was. I bought it for the plot, and in the hope that it was a moral-choices-done-right kind of game.I've said this before, on this very thread, but people like you worry me. A lot. What gives you the right to demand an end to a franchise that millions play and enjoy? What gives you the right to try to take that from them? What makes you think you're more of an authority on the matter of what games deserve to exist than me, or the stereotypical foamy-mouthed CoD player who calls you a faggot for using mines?

finalizer:Ah, I've been waiting for this roast with anticipation ever since the game had been released to obnoxious, undeserved praise by the larger chunk of gaming publications. Nice to see Yahtzee telling it like it is.

HOW CAN YOU SAY ITS UNDESERVED? God, why don't people understand that this game is God distilled into gold then converted into code? I rated COD:BO2 9001/10 because it was that good and not all the same game copy/pasted for the last 5 years.

I'm sorry but BO2 is not that good.The pick-10 customization is cool. The perks and guns seem better balanced. The point system is better, but . .

1. Most of the maps are terrible2. The guns and killstreaks are still a lot of the same ole shit from the last games. Isn't this supposed to be future warfare? Why am I still using MP5s or MP7s or whatever. Same guns, same grenades, same whatever. 3. The lag compensation is still buggered and can basically ruin any match any time.

Particularly on the latter, there are some games where I just own everyone and some games where I can't kill a single guy. I get killed in one bullet, then I watch the kill cam and see the other guy fire 5-6 bullets before my guy drops. Then I drop the game because I know it's basically a waste of time. If the other team has a full 2 seconds on me then what the hell am I doing playing?

The game play that took the biggest kick to the balls is Domination. The map design, combined with the flag placement is terrible. It's all boring linear crap. In MW3 flag placement was circular for the most part, so you could have a more dynamic game. In BO2 it's all in a straight line, it's very hard to cap B flag once the enemy takes it, and it's even harder to cap the opposing A/C because the enemy team can cover both flags very easily because it's all in a straight line! Never seen so many lop-sided victories/defeats in Dom as I have in BO2.

ARCTIC_EAGLE:Wow, worst review EVER! Any professional review would give this game, the most amazing in history, a 90-100 or 4/5. Every single part of this game is new and interesting and amazing, you're inability to recognize that demonstrates how bad you are at reviewing. When COD:B03 comes out in 2 years you can correct you mistake by giving it a 90-100 like every other reviewer will. Be sure to do the same for COD:MW4, COD:MW5, COD:BO4, COD:MW6, etc. They will ALL be amazing and look amazing and just be more amazing then the amazingly amazing game that came before. In fact they'll be so amazing they'll amaze you into an amazement coma of amazement.

Can't tell if ironic or serious....

I honestly thought Blops one had a decent plot, but then again I'm a sucker for mental twists. I completely agree with the political side of this review but at the same time I feel sad because it just shows that even though other people are recognizing what's wrong, America is still not being fixed.

It is not baiting if it is 100% true. He wanted to know why non-Americans don't like the US. I explained why. No real issue with that, at least in my eyes.

You know how it's so obviously baiting... you decided to ignore ALL of your contradictions I pointed out relating to the thread to go on with this nonsense.

I'm non-american and I like America, in general. I like Morgan Freeman, I like Janeane Garofalo, I like John Stewart, I like George Carlin. I just don't like those nutters like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, and I like to see them lose and I'm glad to see they've been losing a lot recently. And I think a lot of people outside America feel that way.

But on topic, Yahtzee could have actually talked about the relevant parts of this game and so could you. But he didn't and you didn't. But the focus was on what most hardly gave a second thought.

Any impression of "white man good, brown man bad" left by the single-player is destroyed by a few rounds of multiplayer where you have to play literally on both sides. The multiplayer is a kind of meritocracy, it's not just the Americans who automatically get the robot super-weapons, anyone who is good enough at the game gets them. A zero consequence warzone, with no civilians and no friendly fire, not even possibility of an innocent setting off a landmine you have placed, death is merely an inconvenience.

There is SOMETHING to say about this... but choosing to say nothing, speaks volumes.

Yes, Oliver North, this game is perfect for me! I've always wanted to play as the first world's prime repression drone! Stay off my bananas, filthy peasants!

Do I get to obliterate tiny grey specks that can't shoot back from a flying robot again, by any chance?

And Yatzhee, how DARE you disrespect our glorious U.S. Army?! Obviously, he utterly hates the United States, and wishes it and everyone in it to burn. Because critizising the glorious jobcreator and freedombringing warmachine is the same thing as being anti-everything the United States stands for.

(On second thought, I don't think I've got what it takes for sarcasm. I'll get me coat...)

It is not baiting if it is 100% true. He wanted to know why non-Americans don't like the US. I explained why. No real issue with that, at least in my eyes.

You know how it's so obviously baiting... you decided to ignore ALL of your contradictions I pointed out relating to the thread to go on with this nonsense.

I'm non-american and I like America, in general. I like Morgan Freeman, I like Janeane Garofalo, I like John Stewart, I like George Carlin. I just don't like those nutters like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, and I like to see them lose and I'm glad to see they've been losing a lot recently. And I think a lot of people outside America feel that way.

But on topic, Yahtzee could have actually talked about the relevant parts of this game and so could you. But he didn't and you didn't. But the focus was on what most hardly gave a second thought.

Any impression of "white man good, brown man bad" left by the single-player is destroyed by a few rounds of multiplayer where you have to play literally on both sides. The multiplayer is a kind of meritocracy, it's not just the Americans who automatically get the robot super-weapons, anyone who is good enough at the game gets them. A zero consequence warzone, with no civilians and no friendly fire, not even possibility of an innocent setting off a landmine you have placed, death is merely an inconvenience.

There is SOMETHING to say about this... but choosing to say nothing, speaks volumes.

Perhaps I should clarify. The US has killed more enemy civilians than any country in the world. We claim we're killing "insurgents" and "terrorists" and whatever else the Pentagon calls them this week, but we end up killing way more innocent civilians than we do enemy combatants. Hitler and Stalin killed their own people, which is a large difference in this case.

I've always had an issue with the notion that one cannot be criticized for liking something. If that object has unfortunate implications, low quality in innovation or especially troubling aspects in its online community, what does that say about the individual who chooses to enjoy it?

There is a definite link between what the game is and what the community is; look towards attitudes online if you want any proof of concept. Also, most of the online community is white because they are the ones buying consoles. Why do they do that? Because they have the money. It's not "white guilt," it's fact.

I'm a born-into-wealth white guy and I reject the notion that I am responsible for the past. I am, however, responsible for the present and the future. Don't use the fact that people point out our ancestor's actions as an excuse to disengage.

So crusades to "correct" those communities by bashing them fits into your "responsibility for the present and future"? Because that never has consequences.

You have a funny way of "not being responsible for the past" but still taking responsibility for it. I'll just tell you, it doesn't help and it won't ever be enough. Do good where you are, people will actually appreciate that.

This isn't an "opinions are sacred and you have no right be against mine" argument. You can say: I like the starwars prequels just fine, Michael Bay can be a good director, I don't like Christopher Nolans movies, Yahtzee isn't funny to me, yahtzee is very funny to me, you have bad taste, whatever.

Stick up for your preferences and pay to have them. That's fine. But you don't get the right to bully other people just because a bunch of people might agree with you. And you CERTAINLY don't get the moral high ground for it. Especially when your facts are wrong.

- Online community is pretty international these days, but still mostly male and western. It's just that way and that's fine. It'll change on it's own.- just because people have money doesn't make them evil. Or their ancestors.- Racism and nationalism is usually more pronounced just about everywhere except America. America is just the one getting the lions share of the scorn from Intellectual Elitists generally because they have the most means to do something about it.

And I'm engaging just fine. I want people be free to like what they want and have judgements of character be made by people who actually know them before they're punished for it. This "White guilt" nonsense is just the current bullshit that casts aspersions on trumped up charges that I'm not fond of.

If you doubt my comment about the XBox Live online community, identify yourself as anything but a white heterosexual male and see how people react. I didn't have any identification and all I heard every match was "homo" "faggot" "bitch" "nigger" "get back in the kitchen" and many inventive combinations of the sort. It's practically what XBox Live is known for. You don't see anything problematic with that? I'm not advocating censorship as that benefits no one. Changing minds and attitudes is the way to go.

Also, if you don't believe there is an issue, look to the birther movement, the NY "Anti-Mosque" movement and the participants in Fox News.

I'm saying that the past is noted but ultimately irrelevant if we wish to move forward. Those in a position of power and/or resources has an obligation to help. That's humanism.

1. Most of the maps are terrible2. The guns and killstreaks are still a lot of the same ole shit from the last games. Isn't this supposed to be future warfare? Why am I still using MP5s or MP7s or whatever. Same guns, same grenades, same whatever. 3. The lag compensation is still buggered and can basically ruin any match any time.

Well lag comp was fixed in MW3, and couldn't you give specifics on map problems? Like, what makes them terrible?

But anyway, as to weapons thing... this "future" is only 2025.

This may come as a shock but that is less than 12 years away you may very well be driving the same car today as you will be driving in 2025. Think about that. Dude, we're living in the future!

And FYI, the MP5 was first produced in 1964 and was used right the way through to the mid 2000's. And it doesn't appear in Black Ops 2's multiplayer, the MP7 does and that was first produced in 2001. So if it has the same life as MP5 then we can expect it being used till 2041!!

See, firearms technology moves slowly with stops and starts. The M1911 pistol for example has been in continuous service for OVER 100 YEARS! The same design. There is virtually no other technology that's still in use essentially unchanged after that time. Even the humble lightbulb has been usurped by the LED and even successors to the M1911 (like the TAC-45 in Blops 2 multiplayer) still use the same fundamental operating principal and identical ammunition.

Most of the weapons in COD4 were more than 12 years old. It should be no surprise that Black Ops 2 has many weapons that we have seen today.

All the advancements we are seeing with weapons technology are not with the fundamentals of guns. No. They are as deadly as they'll ever need to be till humans become more bear-like in their build, the advancements are in sighting and guidance systems, as you see in Black Ops 2.

You know the jokes about how white people drive don't bother me so much as people treating slavery like the original sin of white people. Funny enough though I only ever see this from other white people, never from other races.

Eh, all these games really start to run together. I'm not surprised to see a negative review from Yahtzee. I enjoy seeing reviews of the game based on it's merits as just a GAME, not just as the new Call of Duty game.

A lot of people seem to have forgotten that Yahtzee doesn't do multiplayer, which is truthfully a very small part of the game, even if that's all you do, so I don't see why people aren't surprised he didn't bother with it.

You can throw up all the cherrypicked right wing rag articles about "reverse racism" and "scary black people" you like. It isn't in any way comparable to institutionalized racism, still inherent in the Western system as it was build by the white man and by far and large still works in favor for him both on the small and large scale.

You are just using stuff like that an convenient excuse to ignore this fact (and doesn't it sort of imply you believe one wrong justifies another?)

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that institutional racism is a white 'western' phenomenon. I can only conclude that you've never travelled to Asia (e.g. Malaysia, where I can assure you race riots are quite commonplace) or Africa (e.g. Ethiopia & Somalia). I've seen appalling racism in Dubai by Arabs against Africans where it really is institutional, & that goes back to the Arab slave trade (which the UN has admitted still exists).

You also misrepresent me, claiming that I believe 'one wrong justifies another' & that I condone racism, neither of which is true. If you want to believe that racism is a purely white 'western' problem & you refuse to educate yourself in the ways of the world then that's up to you, but please don't be so dishonest as to level unfounded slurs to support your knee-jerk reaction.

Racism is the prejudicial discrimination of individuals based on their ethnicity. Regardless of who perpetrates it it's an atrocity, & to claim that whites can be perpetrators but not victims of it is an appalling hypocrisy. Truly sickening.

Okay, the gameplay can't have stayed the same and got worse at the same time. Modern Warfare 1 at the time was hailed as being a brilliant game with excellent gameplay. Blops 2 still basically has the same gameplay, but now it's suddenly shit?

Hey, I get that for some people it definitely gets boring, because the gameplay is the same on the most part, the only things that change are the maps, stories and characters, so I guess Blops 2 is basically MW with a different skin. Boring to some, but if you love the previous games it will keep it's enjoyment. CoD hasn't really gotten much better or much worse. It's the same.

Perhaps I should clarify. The US has killed more enemy civilians than any country in the world. We claim we're killing "insurgents" and "terrorists" and whatever else the Pentagon calls them this week, but we end up killing way more innocent civilians than we do enemy combatants. Hitler and Stalin killed their own people, which is a large difference in this case.

So the London Blitz was nothing then? Eastern Europe was never moved westward and the mass exodus that followed never killed a million people? North Vietnam never exterminated South Vietnamese villages and started a genocide on the US allied Hmong? There were no genocides in the Balkans after Yugoslavia fell?

The only thing that is different when the US wages war is that their enemies can't touch their civilians, instead they attack their own.

Perhaps I should clarify. The US has killed more enemy civilians than any country in the world. We claim we're killing "insurgents" and "terrorists" and whatever else the Pentagon calls them this week, but we end up killing way more innocent civilians than we do enemy combatants. Hitler and Stalin killed their own people, which is a large difference in this case.

"enemy civilians... ... innocent civilians"

Errm... that doesn't clarify anything at all.

Are they enemy or not? One second it's "America does this" then it's "We do this". Wait... are you claiming to BE America? Speak for America? Part of the current administration? And what kind of distinction is that from the crimes of Hitler and Stalin whether they were "their own people" or not?!?!? Really.

Please, if you want to reply to me, reply to me via PM, because this has gotten WAY off topic.